‘Did You Pause Cyber Ops Against Russia?’—Goodlander Corners Hegseth in Explosive Hearing

The Constitution on Trial: Why Pete Hegseth’s Evasiveness Signals a Crisis of Governance

The recent congressional hearing, initiated by Representative Goodlander, was not a routine budget discussion; it was a brutal, structured interrogation that exposed the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, as either profoundly unprepared or fundamentally dismissive of his constitutional duties. Every single answer he refused to give, from the budget timeline to respecting the Supreme Court, underscored a pervasive culture of evasion, irresponsibility, and alarming contempt for the rule of law at the highest levels of the Pentagon.

The Budget as Betrayal: Undermining the Power of the Purse

The foundation of American democracy rests on the power of the purse, which is explicitly granted to Congress by the Constitution. Yet, Hegseth and his administration have treated this sacred duty as an inconvenient suggestion. The Department of Defense is legally required to submit its budget early in the year. The administration is now months late and, when directly asked for a commitment, Hegseth could not—or would not—provide a single date.

His evasiveness is not mere “sloppy governance”; it is a calculated act that cripples congressional oversight. How can elected representatives uphold their oath to responsibly spend every taxpayer dollar when the chief steward of the nation’s defense budget refuses to even deliver the required document? Furthermore, the DoD stands alone in its shameful record, having failed every single audit since the 1990s. Hegseth’s promise to eventually pass an audit by 2028 is a normalization of failure—a public admission that he is perfectly comfortable presiding over a vast, unauditable machine fueled by taxpayer money, accountable to no one. The rhetoric of “fiscal responsibility” is meaningless when the reality is a black hole of chronic, institutionalized failure.

The Cyber-War and the China Capitulation

When the conversation shifted to the critical threats posed by Russia and China, Hegseth’s answers remained vague, offering political slogans instead of strategic clarity.

Goodlander pressed a vital point on the global competition with Beijing: Will American AI dominance be sacrificed in trade negotiations? This is not a hypothetical; it is a profound national security concern. The next generation of warfare, intelligence, and economic power hinges on AI. To treat dominance in this technology as a bargaining chip in pursuit of a cosmetic “trade win” would be an act of strategic self-mutilation. While Hegseth offered political reassurance—”The president is not surrendering any of our dominance”—his failure to issue an unequivocal, direct commitment exposed the chilling possibility that this crucial strategic asset could indeed be placed on the table by an administration known for its erratic negotiating tactics.

Equally alarming was the exchange regarding Russia. When asked directly if he had ordered a pause in offensive cyber operations against Russia—a nation actively engaged in destabilization and election interference—Hegseth issued a blanket denial. This denial now stands on the public record, but the need for such a question signals the profound lack of trust between the administration and Congress on critical national defense matters. A pause in offensive cyber posture would be a catastrophic concession, confirming the belief that this administration is willing to pull its punches for political expediency.

The Ultimate Treason: Refusing to Obey the Supreme Court

The most revealing and frankly chilling moment of the entire hearing came with a simple, foundational question: Will you obey a ruling of the United States Supreme Court?

The answer should have been an instantaneous, unwavering, “Yes.” It is the most basic requirement of the oath every official takes—to uphold the Constitution and the fundamental principle of the separation of powers.

Instead, Hegseth dodged, babbling about “district courts” and arguing that they should not “set the foreign policy of the United States.” Goodlander was not asking about district courts; she was asking about the highest judicial authority in the land. The refusal to give a direct, automatic answer to this core question reveals an unsettling contempt for the constitutional order. It suggests an executive branch that sees the judiciary not as a co-equal branch of government, but as a political obstacle to be circumvented or ignored.

This evasion is not just bad politics; it is dangerous to the Republic. When the Secretary of Defense—a civilian leader of the Armed Forces—will not unequivocally commit to obeying the Supreme Court, it signals that the rule of law is optional, subordinate to the whims of the executive. This moment underscored a truth that should terrify every American: in this administration, constitutional responsibility is treated with a mixture of confusion and brazen disregard, prioritizing political performance over the integrity of the nation’s defense and its legal framework.